Conference yukon::christian_v7

      Hi Paul,
    
        "But there have never been any examples given..."
    
        Actually, I gave an example in 785.22.
    
    						Tony

Thanks, Tony.  I figured there probably WERE some things buried in there,
which I why I started this note.

For continuity, here's Tony's note, copied here:

=============================================================================
Note 785.22                various greek texts                      22 of 53
YIELD::BARBIERI                             28 lines  31-AUG-1995 08:31:53.96
                              -< Me No Like NIV >-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      I just don't like the NIV much at all.  My bias is a little
      strong, but here it is...
    
      I think the doctrine of the humanity of Christ is extremely
      important.  I have studied it at some length and have come
      to my own conclusion that Christ took sinful flesh [sarx].
    
      Anyway, the KJV always renders sarx as flesh.  But, there are
      a couple occurances where one sees the english 'nature' in 
      the NT.  If one sees these texts, it is not possible that Jesus
      had the same 'nature' as sinful man, it is clearly inclusive
      of the mind/character.  Two verses which have this word are
      Romans 2:14 and Ephesians 2:3.  The Ephesians text is especially
      good as it includes sarx as well.
    
      The Greek from which the word nature is rendered in the KJV is
      phusis.
    
      Check out your NIV.  It actually renders BOTH PHUSIS AND SARX
      AS NATURE.
    
      Virtually no distinction between the words all the while the
      actually distinction is HUGE.
    
      Thats it...not much of a Bible for me.
    
    							Tony
               

    I have several in my margin notes scattered all over my Bible.  I'll
    see if I can find some when I catch up with work.  Most of them are in
    the NT.
    
    Mike

    This is from memory, and I don't have a NIV on me so that I can type in
    the verses from different versions. So the verification of these
    "difficulties" that I have with the NIV is left as an exercise to the
    reader.
    
    1 Cor. 7:1 -> the mss say that it's good for a man not to touch a
    	woman; I believe the NIV says it's good for a man not to marry
    	a woman
    
    Rev. 6:12 -> the mss say that the moon became like blood; I believe the
    	NIV adds the word "red", which does not appear in the mss
    
    Rev. 17:11 -> the mss say that the beast is an eighth; I believe the
    	NIV adds the word "king" (i.e. an eighth king), which does not
    	appear in the mss
    
    I'm sure there are plenty of other examples that I could find if I had
    the energy, and these aren't necessarily the best examples that one
    could cite.
    
    The problem I have with the NIV is that it uses a translation
    philosophy of "dynamic equivalence", which means that the translators
    were mostly concerned with conveying what they thought was the
    *meaning* of the passage as opposed to accurately conveying the words
    themselves. It could be argued (especially from the examples I gave
    above) that the translators did a good job at conveying the meaning. My
    point of contention, though, is that we English readers have no way of
    knowing what words the Holy Spirit used versus what words were
    added/removed by the NIV translators to convey what *they* thought was
    *meant* by the words the Holy Spirit used. With the KJV/NKJV/NAS, the
    editors are kind enough to supply italics for the significant words
    that have been added to improve the flow of how it reads. These
    translations use a "formal equivalence" philosophy.
    
    So it's not about manuscripts, it's about translation philosophy. I
    prefer having the words, and then studying to know what is meant. The
    NIV translators have taken that ability away. All that being said, I
    don't "slam" the NIV; it's a nice conservative Bible. When it comes to
    study, though, I will use it almost as I would a commentary - very
    cautiously.
    
    	BD�

    It can be about manuscripts depending on what "level" you are at -- or
    if you care...and this may not be an issue for most people. 
    In a nutshell, do you trust a manuscript that has been
    maintained by the greek church all along (1611 Textus Receptus [NKJV]) 
    or do you want the UBS text which is based on a very small number of 
    texts and a "what ever seems best to our group at the time" method of 
    determining primary readings by Metzger (Liberal Historical-Critical)and 
    the gang? 
    
j

    Re .5 (CSC32::KUHN)
    
    When I said it isn't about manuscripts I was just making the
    distinction between the NIV and the NAS. They both use the same set of
    mss, but the difference between the two is the translation philosophy.
    So I just wanted to make it clear that there are really two issues: one
    is which set of mss to use, the other which translation philosophy to
    use. When comparing [N]KJV to NIV you are dealing with both issues, but
    when comparing NAS to NIV you are dealing only with the second.
    
    	BD�

I really am talking here about a Bible used for general reading, not specific
verse-by-verse study.  If I'm going to study a verse I pull out the stops,
look up the original language words in LOGOS, read several versions, look at
an interlinear bible, etc.  But if I'm going to read a chunk of scripture at
a time, I don't have time to do that.

I guess I think in terms of something sort of like 'hit rate.'  As in, for
any given translation, what percent of the time is the real point of the
original passage going to get through to me from the translation, without an
exhaustive study of the verse?

There are problems at both ends of the spectrum.  A formal translation takes
no account of idiom - it translates the words as they are.  It takes more
study to understand the ancient idioms.  Not that more study is a bad thing,
but we're back at needing to go to the original because the translation is
misleading, which was the problem with a dynamic translation.  The biggest
part of the problem is that we don't always know when a phrase is idiomatic. 
We may read it at face value and not know that it means something else.  So a
verse which I might read in a formal translation that I get the wrong
impression from because of an idiomatic expression, I'd consider a 'miss.'

A dynamic translation tries to take idiom into account, but of course there
is the possibility that something was intended in the actual words that
doesn't come through the translation of the idiom, or that the translators
unconsciously inserted their own biases.  So that would be a 'miss.'

No translation is going to bat 1.000.  Regardless of the translation, careful
study is necessary to get the original intent.  But I'm not convinced that
the miss rate of the NIV is worse than, for example, the NAS.

An example I've noted about idiom is the idiom of the day used in Lev 18 (and
elsewhere) for sexual relations - "uncover nakedness."  The NAS translates
these verses as "You shall not uncover the nakedness of...", the NIV
translates them as "You shall not have sexual relations with..."  The
original words are an idiom - our current common idiom is "sleep with."  If
someone wrote in today's idiom, saying "You shall not sleep with...", and
someone in another culture 3000 years from now was trying to interpret it,
they might get very concerned about people sleeping 'with' each other.  They
might start to consider it a sin to be in a plane seat next to someone and
both of you fall asleep.  They might develop a whole understanding of how our
spirits interact when we are asleep next to one another.  But though that's
what the words say, they are only an idiom.  In our culture, at the time the
words are spoken, it is well known that the intent has nothing at all to do
with sleeping.

If you look at an interlinear bible, you can see that even the most careful
formal translation reads a lot into the words, from an understanding of the
grammar of the original language.  If we really wanted "The real words," then
even a formal translation is too far removed.  We should be using an
interlinear.  Only we'll miss a lot, because we don't understand the grammar.
A dynamic translation simply expands that to include idiom as well as grammar.

Tony gave a good example of a place where the translation might cause a
'miss.'  Though I looked at the verses you mentioned and others, and it seems
that 'sarx' is nearly always rendered as 'sinful nature,' while 'phusis' is
rendered as just 'nature' or 'by nature.'

Taking that Eph 2:3 passage, going from interlinear to KJV to NAS to NIV, it
looks like this:

Interlinear (I'm not sure if this is the actual order in Greek):

en		in, by, among
hos		which, whom
kai		and, also
hemeis		we, us
pas		all
anastrepho	to return, conduct onself, or live with
pote		formerly
en		in, by, among
epithumia	lust, craving for the forbidden
hemon		our, we, us
sarx		flesh (possible overtones of sinful desires)
poieo		make, produce, form (20 different nuanced definitions)
thelema		will, what one wishes or desires
sarx		flesh (possible overtones of sinful desires)
kai		and, also
dainoia		mind, understanding
kai		and, also
ane		was, were
phusis		nature, natural
teknon		offspring, children
orge		wrath, anger
kai		and, also
hoce		as, like
loipoy		others, the rest

KJV:

Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our
flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and the mind, and were by nature
the children of wrath, even as others.

NAS:

Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the
desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath,
even as the rest.

NIV:

All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our
sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts.  Like the rest, we were
by nature objects of wrath.


Hmmm.  As I do that I wonder where the word 'children' went in the NIV. 
Idiom again?  Maybe not?

Paul

    .6
    oops. sorry. As Ed Mcmahon would say..."you are correct sir". :-)